Penelope J. Oakes

Self and Collective: Cognition and Social Context

The relationship between the self and the collective is discussed from the perspective of self-categorization theory. Self-categorization theory makes a basic distinction between personal and social identity as different levels of self-categorization. It shows how the emergent properties of group processes can be explained in terms of a shift in self perception from personal to social identity. It also elucidates how self-categorization varies with the social context. It argues that self-categorizing is inherently variable, fluid, and context dependent, as sedf-categories are social comparative and are always relative to a frame of reference. This notion has major implications for accepted ways of thinking about the self: The variability of self-categorizing provides the perceiver with behavioral and cognitive flexibility and ensures that cognition is always shaped by the social context in which it takes place.

Social Identity Salience and the Emergence of Stereotype Consensus

In recent years, there has been a renewal of interest in the processes through which groups coordinate social perceptions and judgement. This topic is particularly important for the study of stereotyping, as most of the impact of stereotypes derives from the fact that they are widely shared within social groups. The present experiment (N = 132) tests the assertion that perceivers are more likely to generate a shared in-group stereotype to the extent that they define themselves and interact in terms of a common social category membership. Results supported predictions, indicating that manipulations intended to heighten social identity salience affected the content of self-categorizations leading to enhanced stereotype consensus and favorableness. As predicted, effects apparent when individuals completed stereotype checklists were also enhanced when checklists were completed in groups. These results are consistent with predictions derived from self-categorization theory and point to the capacity for internalized group memberships to structure and regulate cognition.

The Group as a Basis for Emergent Stereotype Consensus

The fact that stereotypes are shared within groups is essential to stereotype definition and operationalization. Nonetheless, stereotype consensus remains under-researched and under-explained. To address this problem we present a theoretical analysis of the process through which stereotype consensus develops. Derived from self-categorization theory, this argues that consensus is produced by shared social identification and the collective co-ordination of perception and behaviour that flows from it. This analysis is examined in a review of relevant research and in studies where dynamic processes of category representation and social influence are shown to contribute to consensual stereotypes of both out-groups and ingroups.

Beyond dependence: An identity approach to social power and domination

This article outlines a new approach to the social psychology of power. Specifically, it challenges the currently influential conflictoriented dependence analysis, in which power operates as an almost exclusively repressive force. Drawing on relevant work from other social science disciplines, the article presents an identity model of power, in which both consensus and conflict play important roles. The model theorizes power as a productive as well as repressive force, and differentiates between social power toachieve desired outcomes and social power overothers (domination). The implications of the model for two classic issues in the power literature are considered: the relationship between power and status, and challenges to power (resistance and social change). The models empirical potential is also discussed.

Social identity and the romance of leadership: The importance of being seen to be 'doing it for us'

Previous research by Meindl (e.g. 1993) on the ‘romance of leadership’ suggests that individuals in leadership roles are perceived to be more charismatic to the extent that the organization they lead undergoes a crisis turnaround (e.g. moving from loss to profit) rather than a crisis decline (e.g. moving from profit to loss). Building on a social identity approach to leadership and previous research by Haslam and Platow (in press-a), this paper argues that this pattern should be tempered by the degree to which a leader’s behavior serves to affirm and promote an ingroup identity shared with followers. Consistent with this analysis, an experimental study (N = 120) revealed that, independent of organizational performance, a (male) leader was seen as more charismatic in an intergroup context when his previous behavior had been identity-affirming or even-handed rather than identity-negating. Even-handed leaders also tended to be seen as particularly charismatic when they were associated with crisis turnaround, while identity-affirming leaders were protected from negative attributions in the context of crisis decline. These results suggest that social identity and self-categorization processes have a complex role to play in the emergence and perception of charismatic leadership.

The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements and the evaluation of group characteristics

A study is reported that examines the effects of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements of groups, and the evaluation of group characteristics. The central assumption is that these social judgements are not absolute, but depend on the social context in which they are grounded. It is demonstrated that people vary their description of the ingroup in terms of central tendency and group variability as a function of the possibility of comparing the ingroup favourably with other groups in the judgemental task. In a similar vein, it is shown that the evaluation of an ingroup characteristic is not fixed, but depends on its relative favourability within the comparative context. The results of this study clearly demonstrate the importance of comparative context in group perception and are discussed with reference to self-categorization theory and alternative models of social judgement.

From personal pictures in the head to collective tools in the world: How shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and change social reality.

Stereotyping and stereotype formation: two metatheories When it was initiated some seventy or so years ago, research into stereotype formation was primarily oriented to the question of why it is that certain attributes come to be associated with particular social groups in the minds of members of the same or other groups. Confronted with findings from the very first empirical studies of stereotype content in which Princeton students were asked to select five traits from a list of eighty-four to describe various national and ethnic groups, Katz and Braly (1933) asked why the students believed that Americans were industrious, Germans scientifically minded, Jews shrewd and Negroes superstitious. As can be seen from Table 8.1, social psychology went on to provide a rich array of answers to such questions. Amongst other things, these pointed to the role of processes that are psychodynamic, socio-cultural and cognitive in origin, and to the mediating role of specific mechanisms such as projection, ethnocentrism, learning, accentuation and illusory correlation. Varied as these mechanisms are, all this research has the shared features of, on the one hand, explaining stereotype content as a product of psychological shortcomings. It suggests, amongst other things, that people hold their stereotypes because of their aberrant personalities, their biased learning and cognition, or their limited information processing capacity. On the other hand, the research also sees that content as itself inappropriate. It suggests that stereotype content is biased, distorted and erroneous (see Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994, for a review).

Responses to powerlessness: Stereotyping as an instrument of social conflict.

In the context of recent arguments that stereotyping plays an important role in the subjugation of powerless groups, this article explores the possibility that stereotyping may also contribute to social change processes engaged in by the disadvantaged. In a partial replication of an experiment by S. C. Wright, D. M. Taylor, and F.M. Moghaddam (1990), participants (N = 44) were placed in powerless, low-status groups and denied entry to an attractive high-status group. The intergroup boundary was open, slightly permeable, or completely impermeable. Participants could respond to this disadvantage in 1 of 3 ways: acceptance, individual protest, or collective protest. As predicted, open boundaries produced acceptance and reproduction of stereotypes consistent with the established status relationship, whereas closed boundaries encouraged collective protest and stereotypes that challenged the powerful groups position.

Psychological Groups and Political Psychology: A Response to Huddy's "Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory"

In a recent article in this journal, Leonie Huddy (2001) asks whether the social identity approach developed by Tajfel, Turner, and their collaborators can “advance the study of identity within political science” (p. 128). She concludes that “various shortcomings and omissions in its research program” (p. 128) hinder the application of the approach to political phenomena. This paper presents a response to Huddy’s evaluation of the social identity approach. Several aspects of her account of social identity work are challenged, especially her suggestion that it ignores subjective aspects of group membership. The interpretation of the minimal group paradigm is discussed in detail, as are issues of identity choice, salience, and variations in identity strength. The treatment of groups as process in social identity theory and self–categorization theory is given particular emphasis.

Variability in Impression Formation: Investigating the Role of Motivation, Capacity, and the Categorization Process

Current theory and research suggests that stereotyping is inversely related to the allocation of attentional resources. For example, motivational factors (e.g., interdependence, accuracy goals) are argued to increase attentional investment and encourage individuation. Within this model, a neglected feature of the impression formation process is the role of the perceivers’ own self-definition. Based on self-categorization theory, it is argued that whether the salient self-other categorization is defined in interpersonal or group terms, respectively, will determine whether impressions will be more individuated or stereotypic. Two experiments are reported where the effect of interdependence (Experiment 1) and accuracy goals (Experiment 2) as well as the salient comparative context (interpersonal, intergroup) on impression formation were investigated. The results suggest that the nature of self-other categorizations does play a significant role in explaining variability in impression formation.